On January 16, Justin Baldoni launched a counterattack against his co-star Blake Lively by filing a staggering $400 million lawsuit aimed at Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist. This lawsuit came just one month after Lively’s bombshell complaint, which made serious allegations of sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign. Notably, Baldoni’s claims referenced Lively’s close friend, Taylor Swift, alleging that both Swift and Reynolds pressured him into accepting changes to a key scene in the film “It Ends With Us.” This scene, often discussed, is supported by Swift’s song “my tear ricochet,” which is featured in both the movie and its trailer.
In a recent appearance on a podcast, Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, continued to criticize Swift, bringing an unexpected twist to the already contentious situation. The rivalry between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni seems far from over, and now with Swift in the mix, the legal battle is shaping up to be even more convoluted. The podcast, titled “Two Angry Men,” hosted by Harvey Levin and Mark Geragos, explored the dynamics of the case, suggesting that Lively and Baldoni’s issues might never actually reach the courtroom—indicating that the lawsuit may simply be a public relations stunt from both sides.
As the discussion unfolded, Freedman was pressed on who might be deposed in the ongoing legal turmoil. While Swift’s name came up, he cautiously replied, “Well, I don’t know that we’re gonna depose Taylor Swift or not,” signaling that the decision was still up for debate. He described the potential to involve the pop star as a “game-time decision,” adding an air of uncertainty to the proceedings. Importantly, he maintained that anyone with pertinent information could potentially be called to testify, including Swift, asserting, “anyone that reasonably has information that can provide evidence in this case is going to be deposed.”
With a smirk, Baldoni’s lawyer acknowledged that Swift was indeed present during the fateful meeting, raising eyebrows about the potential implications her testimony could have on the case. Levin and Geragos expressed their belief that the high-profile actors involved would likely do anything in their power to avoid a trial, particularly considering the consequences of putting Swift, who is arguably the biggest star involved, on the witness stand. Levin stated, “the last thing they want is to have their friend, the biggest star in the world now, sitting on a stand being grilled,” highlighting the personal stakes intertwined in this legal dispute.
Freedman responded to Levin’s concerns, hinting at possible legal maneuvers that might unfold in an effort to keep Swift out of the courtroom. He implied that the opposing side would likely resort to questionable tactics to sidestep her deposition, indicating that the legal strategies involved are about more than just the case at hand. As this dramatic saga continues to evolve, the significance of this lawsuit extends beyond personal grievances—it encapsulates the intricate dance between celebrity culture and the legal system, making the outcome eagerly anticipated by fans and observers alike.
